G
- Status
J
Justy90
Guest
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut here. I got as far as it being published by Holy Trinity church in 1817, but never was able to get any further. My experience with it was it being referenced several times in a debate involving Fr. Mitch Pacwa and a Protestant doctor of theology. It seems utterly bizzare that I was lambasted over the quote I gave from it regarding the Catholic church’s doctrine regarding the pope. I don’t recall any of the quote from the Catechism stating anything gravely out of line with how I understand Catholic theology on this matter.
M
MarkBrown
Guest
Judgment? Interesting. I guess you do not know that the majority if not all of the Bishops of the ACNA sit in two college of Bishops. AMiA Bishops are in both the ACNA and Rwanda, REC: REC and ACNA, etc.
I do believe this is wrong and divided loyalities. My Bishop knows my position. It does hinder the ACNA with everyone looking over their shoulders to the Archbishops who do not reside in the States. Hence foreign and last I check, Rwanda was in Africa. +Iker has publicly called for ++Duncan to stop ordaining women and he, +Iker would take his diocese out of the ACNA if they tried to place a woman in the role of a bishop. In the most recent ACNA Bishop’s meeting, Bishop Grote of the REC tried to have the College of Bishops address the issue of WO. ++Duncan did not have it on the agenda and told everyone to wait until June. The ACNA wants to move forward without a firm foundation. Issues that divide are ignored, not addressed.
Do I question their salvation or zeal for the gospel? No. Just a lack of procedural clarity. The REC does not recognize WO, but in joint functions such as ordinations, AMiA has sent ordained women to participate in REC ordinations.
This is not what the ACNA recommends, but what its lack of foresight has brought upon the laity.
Fr.Mark
ACNA
M
MarkBrown
Guest
Padrej,
I agree with you about continuing Anglicans tendancy to fight about anything. I also find it interesting you lump me in with them by doing to me what you eschew about Traditional Anglicans. The use of the words foreign and African are descriptive or adjectives. Rwanda is in Africa, hence the Archbishop is African and foreign. You are grasping at straws trying to paint me as some “inbred” looking for a fight or implying I am some type of racist for using correct adjectives.
I do question your motives. You appear, pass judgment on me and attempt to take a high road in morality and love quoting or alluding to quotes of Christ. None of which moves this thread along, but deflects honest discussion of a claim made by a poster who does not appear willing or able to produce supporting documentation.
Fr.Mark
ACNA
G
GKC
Guest
But the Catechism published in 1817 was an Episcopal Catechism, not a RCC catechism. For this to be taken as a statement of RC doctrine, it needs to be referenced to an identifiable Roman Catholic catechism. Ankerberg is not going to be addressing Fr. Pacwa by quoting an Episcopal document, and asking him to explain why the RCC believes what he quoted.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
Do try and understand the difference between a catechism produced by the Episcopal Church, and one produced by the Roman Catholic Church (assuming one such exists, in this case). It is essential to making any progress on this matter. All references in padrej’s posts are to the Episcopal catechism. As you can tell by noting his mention of Seabury, and Hobart.
What is lacking here, and what you continue to fail to produce, is a neutral reference to a Roman Catholic New York Catechism, which can demonstrably be shown to contain the language you cite. Until this is done, the assertion has all the intellectual credibility of something produced by Jack Chick. You don’t have a source. You have an alleged source. Not historically sound.
GKC
G
GKC
Guest
M
MarkBrown
Guest
Justy,
GKC did read the post and responded. It “appears” Padrej and you are quoting an Episcopal catechism. Padrej linked to another anti-catholic website that “quotes” the “RC New York Catechism”. Interesting, no one can produce the RC New York Catechism. The Episcopal New York Catechism supports your view and tells Episcopalians in New York in the 19th Century what the Roman Catholic Church believes.
The website says it quotes the RC NY Catechism…but no one can produce an Roman Catholic New York Catechism. Hence GKC reference to the source of your quote is made up out of thin air.
So far all that has been produced are some anti-catholic websites, an Episcopal Catechism telling us what Roman Catholics think, and Bottener telling us what Roman Catholics think. Nothing, like sources, showing offical, semi offical or non offical teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.
Fr. Mark
ACNA
G
GKC
Guest
Which may be true or may not. But it isn’t the point. The point is that if you use the quote, and cite a supposed document (a RC New York Catechism, if one exists) you have to be able to demonstrate, not that the RCC might assert that, but that they did assert it, in those words, in that place. It’s not good enough to say that “Well, they say things like that, in other places, so it doesn’t matter if they actually said it here or not, or if it is, in fact, made up from whole cloth”. If you want to use that “source”, be prepared to back up your assertion. If you can’t, find a source you can back up, that says the same thing. Given your assertions, that should not be difficult.
GKC
M
MarkBrown
Guest
Where does the Catholic Catechism tell us what the Episcopal Catechism of 1817 states?
My copy from 1997 (lastest copyright) does not have anything like you quoted in post #26 and subsequently claim is offical Catholic teachings.
Fr. Mark
ACNA
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Hey Lucky,
I’m glad I interest you. We aim to interest!
When I speak of the “mythical” celtic church, I’m not implying it didn’t exist at all. I’m merely saying that the argument that the celtic church existed as a unique church apart from the rest of Roman, Western Christendom as something opposed to the papacy, as something completely self-governing outside of the rest of the West, is a myth. For centuries many Anglicans touted this “Celtic Church” that existed completely Rome-free for the longest time until the papists trounced upon the shores of Great Britain and usurped this lovely fellowship transforming it into a papal dictatorship. The Celts didn’t want Rome and they were opposed to Rome but were ultimately squashed and dominated. This is a fable. The celtic church existed but not as one unified body free of the papacy. The Celtic church venerated the Bishop of Rome and were loyal to him. The English historian Patrick Wormold has written extensively about the celtic church and describes it as I just characterized it. The Celtic church was also very insular and characterized by a monastic lifestyle, not a diocesan one overall, and when Rome withdrew after the visigoth sacking, etc. Rome had less influence and they became more insular than ever. Some traditions developed that were unique. They had a unique penitential system and liturgical variations, etc. But the only real reason they were a bit apart for a while was due to the fall of Rome. Before the fall they were loyal to the Holy Father and after the Frankish episcopal system was dropped by Pope Honorious in the seventh century and things got back under way…
I do apologize if my post made it sound like no Celtic Church existed at all. Rather, an independent Celtic church that was papal-free and not loyal to Rome in its origins is the myth I sought to expose. JRH Moorman, a historian who has studied Christianity in England, and JND Kelly, an Anglican priest and scholar who has also written on the topic, both make this point. God bless.
I’m glad I interest you. We aim to interest!
When I speak of the “mythical” celtic church, I’m not implying it didn’t exist at all. I’m merely saying that the argument that the celtic church existed as a unique church apart from the rest of Roman, Western Christendom as something opposed to the papacy, as something completely self-governing outside of the rest of the West, is a myth. For centuries many Anglicans touted this “Celtic Church” that existed completely Rome-free for the longest time until the papists trounced upon the shores of Great Britain and usurped this lovely fellowship transforming it into a papal dictatorship. The Celts didn’t want Rome and they were opposed to Rome but were ultimately squashed and dominated. This is a fable. The celtic church existed but not as one unified body free of the papacy. The Celtic church venerated the Bishop of Rome and were loyal to him. The English historian Patrick Wormold has written extensively about the celtic church and describes it as I just characterized it. The Celtic church was also very insular and characterized by a monastic lifestyle, not a diocesan one overall, and when Rome withdrew after the visigoth sacking, etc. Rome had less influence and they became more insular than ever. Some traditions developed that were unique. They had a unique penitential system and liturgical variations, etc. But the only real reason they were a bit apart for a while was due to the fall of Rome. Before the fall they were loyal to the Holy Father and after the Frankish episcopal system was dropped by Pope Honorious in the seventh century and things got back under way…I do apologize if my post made it sound like no Celtic Church existed at all. Rather, an independent Celtic church that was papal-free and not loyal to Rome in its origins is the myth I sought to expose. JRH Moorman, a historian who has studied Christianity in England, and JND Kelly, an Anglican priest and scholar who has also written on the topic, both make this point. God bless.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I won’t beat a dead horse here. GKC and Father Mark Brown have both summed up the situation rather accurately and succinctly here. The New York Catechism is an Episcopal catechism. Justy90 claimed it was Roman Catholic trying to catch Catholics with a “you Catholics worship the Pope as if he were Christ!” argument. He got caught with his pants down here because he couldn’t find where this “source” of his (that he head in a debate with Ankerberg and Pacwa) came from! Quoting an Episcopal catechism to prove what Catholics believe about themselves is about the worst approach I’ve ever seen. It’s like going to the British and looking at their view of the Revolution to find out the American Revolution’s true motivations, causes, and chain of events…or going to a Democratic senate briefing to find out the Republicans’ views on the legislation. If you want to know what the Church teaches: GO TO THE CATECHISM OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH is my opinion. And if Justy did that, he’d find exactly what I posted the other day–that the Holy Father is the Vicar of Christ on earth, his representative and he holds the keys of Peter. He is NOT CHRIST as Justy paints him out to be and we do not worship him or hold him in the same esteem that we hold Our Lord. We hold Benedict XVI in the same esteem that we hold PETER. Big difference. Justy’s argument now is, “well, ok, fine, you got me, it isn’t a legitimate Catholic catechism and never was BUT it’s true, isn’t it!?” The answer is NO. It’s not true. I don’t care what the Episcopalians thought Catholics thought. The lesson I hope that is learned here is, if you want to know what someone believes, go to the horse’s mouth! I have a friend who is like this. He is a great guy but he always listens to Rush Limbaugh to know what the Democratic opposition believes. I tell him, if you want to know what they believe, read their websites, follow their votes, listen to what they say, and watch what they actually do when it comes to voting and intriguing in the Congress. You don’t need Rush to interpret it as a middle man, just listen and watch.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
We’ve sung it in our parish as well, though rarely. I like the tune actually. It’s “Amazing Grace” that makes me reach for the barf bag…
L
luckyfredsdad
Guest
There wasn’t a ‘Roman’, Western Christendom at that time! [First six hundred yrs.] Only the Catholic Church.There was a Bishop of Rome who was Western Patriarch, who was no more than the Emperors Civil Servant for the duration of the states residence in Rome or the West! Whilst he was probably respected as patriarch, he doesn’t appear to have known much about Britain?Hey Lucky,
I’m glad I interest you. We aim to interest!
Certainly the rest of the Church outside Italy didn’t pay a great deal of attention to him either,otherwise why should he resort to the Stasi, as in the case of S.Hilary. Or why would he need to resort to the state at all?
Well, congratulations! At last it is beginning to sink in!
If it wasn’t so, why did William the Butcher receive the blessing of the papacy and remove all the Saxon Hierarchy on his conquering England, as well as removing all the abbots and senior churchmen?
It probably never entered their head, it was a different world and you’r
twisting it to fit in a 21st Century frame of mind.
What Patrick Wormald writes about is his business, as it is I’ve never heard of him which I find most suspicious.The Historians who are known and respected, such as Collier say slightly different thing, as you can imagine. Further, even you’r early Roman commentators such as Parsons, tell us that the Church in England came from the East!
Everyone and every manifestation of the Catholic Church has its own characteristics, look at Rome as an instance, the Church in Britain was no different. It did however help bring Christ to the Northern Europeans and it was independent of Rome. Did your perusal of Wormald tell you that it was not till very late before the Celtic Church in Britain [9th, Cent, ] even admitted Continental Catholics to Communion. In Ireland it was after the Conquest!
There are two letters from S.Columbanus Continental or Latin, shortcomings as regards tolerance where the question of Easterwas discussed! Also, he took the Pope to task for his attitude regarding the Three Chapters were concerned! Telling the pope,“For Christ’s sake clear your reputation which is mangled amongst the nations.” He said furtther, regarding Pope Vigilius and the 5th, General Council,“If you know that Vigilius himself died so infected,[of heresy], why do you in conscience attest him”.
Does it look as though the British Catholics held any regard for the Bishop of Rome? They were polite as to his Church given prerogatives, but that is all.
.
Loyal to Honorius who was anathamatised by the 6th, Council? A heretic? Nonsense
**My aunt, God Bless Her, used to say that," there are men of Ireland and Irish men!" I totally agree with her! Both Kelly and Moorman are modern writers who have absorbed all the Anglo Catholic rubbish of their times and have lost all idea of the true nature of the Church! They are Neo Anglicans, not tradionalists.
I do not criticise you for their lack of knowledge or understanding!.**
L
luckyfredsdad
Guest
Even, offical, semi offical or non offical teachings of the Roman Catholic Church can be caught out . Roman Bishops in 1810 in a Synodical Declaration stated, “Infallibility not part of Catholic Religion” Whilst, Keenens Catechism, declared “Infallibility” to be a protestant invention.!
Bet they had egg on their faces?
What it means is circumstances alter cases?
P
Padrej
Guest
Fr Mark
With all due respect to your office, I am making reference to the tone and genre of your posts as their language seems to be one of one of the fighting Anglicans. As to the “Racist” remark, I would have referred to people from “Nigeria” as those of the “Global South” like most other Anglicans do as it does not carry with it a racial overtone. Granted there is nothing wrong with calling a Nigerian a Nigerian but sadly we are in a PC society that tends to expect more.
Maybe if something that I have said has caused you to feel, as they say where I am from “stepped on a little,” it is God’s way of telling you that I was not passing judgment but rather I had hit the nail on the head. I believe it was you who said Advent is supposed to be a time of reflection; I hope that this gives you something to reflect on.
Padrej
Have a blessed Christmas
J
Javl
Guest
In reference to the “New York Catechism” that has been the subject of discussion, is it possible that it was the Baltimore Catechism that was in use during the times mentioned?
The Baltimore Catechism was one of the first Catechisms used by the CC in this country.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
The Baltimore Catechism was one of the first Catechisms used by the CC in this country.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
- Status